From my understanding, hot water heating may be an issue with high-rise development in the downtown and midtown areas, and these issues increase as the footprint of buildings shrink (narrow and tall). Residential water heaters are more efficient than their gas-powered counterparts. They are currently more expensive, spurring SMUD's excellent rebate programs. I would like to share the five recommendations that 350 Sacramento and other organizations will be sending to the city council in advance of the Aug 25 meeting where the MCCC report will be discussed, and as the city planners in these meeting have stated, explicit direction will be given by the council on the CAP. These recommendations are attached.
The Sacramento Metro Chamber worked closely with the Mayors Climate Commission through final approval on June 29. We hosted multiple biz round tables. This input is reflected in the final report but is NOT in the Climate Action Plan.
This language is missing:
Provided that the costs to go all-electric are cost effective including the incremental costs of electrical infrastructure upgrades and the technology has shown to be feasible.
On June 29, SMUD CEO Arlen Orchard stated:
The biggest issue is electric hot water heating. There are not any examples within our urban core at this point. [The technology] isn’t there yet. The technology is relatively new. It is true that it does include some additional space challenges for infill development and it is true that right now it is not cost competitive with traditional gas.
We’re gravely concerned that the current language will cripple our ability to build at a time in which we need jobs, infrastructure and housing.
summary of emailed comments:
I infer that the plan is to graft our existing fossil fuel lifestyles onto PVs and windmills. I don’t think this is realistic.
I expect that staff analysis contains the same sort of well-meaning wishlists that I first saw when I was on the Sacramento Environmental Commission in the 1990s. And because the price signals are all wrong, I expect similar results, namely mostly a failure to achieve the stated goals.
One very noticeable and feasible measure that can be implemented very soon – banning leafblowers. They are ubiquitous, very noisy, very smelly and dusty, bad for gardens – and completely unnecessary, as the tasks in question are well within human capability. Banning leafblowers and other landscaping machines is an easy first step to practice a new paradigm and also create jobs. If we cannot even stop using leafblowers, we deserve to be toast. So I have constructed a little plan: http://motherearthhome.blogspot.com/
I am hoping the Sacramento Climate Action Plan Update will include the recommendations of the Mayor's Commission on Climate Change. I also hope the Sacramento CAP will direct city officials to work with SMUD and PG&E to inform residents of the "pounds of CO2 emitted per day" delivering their services. If you consult the United Nations Environmental Program website you will see that world CO2 emissions must decrease 7.6% per year beginning in 2020, and decrease 7.6% a year every year for the next 10 years to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C. If we express world CO2 emissions in terms of the "average world citizen", the average world citizen must decrease their 29 pounds of CO2 per person per day in 2019, to 12.3 pounds of CO2 per person per day in 2030 if we are to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C.
I was informed by Sacramento City staff that the recommendations from the Mayors' Commission on Climate Change (MCCC) would form the basis of the "Sacramento Climate Action Plan Update". However, that Update rarely mentions the MCCC recommendations. I served on the MCCC's Technical Advisory Committee for Transportation, and our committee worked hard to develop a consensus for necessary action. It is frustrating to see those recommendations ignored in the Update you have received. I hope you will query City staff on the reasons for this lack of follow-through, and recommend to the City Council baed on this review.
Ralph Propper, ECOS President (Environmental Council of Sacramento)
The Mayors' Commission on Climate Change (MCCC) issued a set of recommendations that MUST be the centerpiece of the upcoming Climate Action Plan (CAP). Hundreds of residents and experts participated in that effort and we expect the Planning Commission and City to incorporate them into the CAP. The fact that the report is not fully discussed in this proposed framework for updating the CAP is of great concern. Why is that???
Even the MCCC recommendations are the bare minimum of what needs to be accomplished if we are to tackle the climate crisis at the scale required by science (and by future generations). We need to do everything possible to cut ghg emissions by 2030, and expect the City to be bold and ambitious, not do a minimal effort with this CAP. The Council recognized the emergency when they passed the Climate Emergency Declaration and the Climate Commission provided a pathway. Do better!!!!
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I'm very concerneed about climare change and want the City's CAP measures to be strong and effective. Specifically, I want the CAP to include the recommendatin of the Mayor's Climate Change Commission. The current document does not clearly do so.
Thankk you.
I am writing to you as someone deeply concerned about climate change.
The agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting on August 13, 2020, includes under item 3. Sacramento Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update. Attached to that agenda item is a 122 page document that only mentions the Mayor’s Commission on Climate Change (MCCC) recommendations in a few spots. I am unsure as to why this is the case.
The MCCC Final Report should be the basis for the framework of any update to the CAP. That it is not discussed thoroughly at the outset of the document submitted with agenda item 3. and each of its recommendations are not set forth and discussed is of great concern. I trust you will look into this issue and make sure the MCCC Final Report is the backbone of Sacramento’s CAP Update.
I am deeply concerned about climate change. As much as I would like my adult children to return to Sacramento where I live and where they grew up, I sadly recommend to them that they not return here due to our increasing heat, persistent serious air pollution resulting in a decreasing quality of life. The recommendations of the MCCC gave me hope that the quality of life would significantly improve here. I attended all of the MCCC meetings and was extremely impressed by the members sustained commitment, dedication, and hard work that resulted in their difficult but appropriate recommendations.
The MCCC Final Report should be used as the basis for the any update to the CAP. That it is not discussed thoroughly at the outset of the document submitted with agenda item 3. and each of its recommendations are not set forth and discussed is of great concern. I trust you will look into this issue and make sure the MCCC Final Report is the backbone of Sacramento’s CAP Update.
In light of our world changing as we know it due to COVID, we should take this opportunity to plan a just recovery and build a greener future for the new normal. To help support this, Sacramento needs to establish a senior-level position to oversee all aspects of climate change implementation and present monthly on progress to the Council. There are great goals established and resources dedicated to ensure we're on track are well worth it.
Regarding the goals set, we should accelerate ordinances to fully electrify low-rise residential buildings by 2021. This will have a large impact on reducing our carbon emissions and the sooner we implement the more future emissions are saved. Fully electric buildings are becoming more commonplace and will be easily achieved starting in 2021.
To help support, the new normal, we should further shift towards human powered transportation and allow for more teleworking and reduced car travel. This includes implementation of the Slow and Active Streets.
I am a Sacramento resident and very concerned about the City’s ability to reach Carbon Zero by 2045.
I request that during your August 13, 2020 meeting the Planning Commission consider the Mayor’s Commission on Climate Change (MCCC) final report and make it integral to your work. Each member of the Planning Commission should read and understand it.
The MCCC’s recommendations set the minimum standards for what the City must do to address climate change. The City should save time, money and effort, and coordinate these plans. This is expedient. It is good government. It is common sense. Do not waste time and re-invent the wheel. Develop recommendations based on the MCCC so we can have one plan and (eyes on the prize) start to reduce emissions immediately.
I am a Sacramento city resident and support the recommendations of the Mayor's Commission on Climate Change, issued in June 2020, with the Final Report to be considered on the City Council’s Agenda on August 25. The MCCC was formed in anticipation of the update of the City's Climate Action Plan, and the MCCC Final Report should be the basis for the framework of any update to the CAP. Why is the MCCC document not included in the official record for this agenda item? Why is the MCCC not referenced more extensively in the draft CAP update document? That it is not discussed thoroughly at the outset of the document is a matter of great concern. I trust you will look into this issue and make sure the MCCC Final Report is the backbone of Sacramento’s CAP Update. I hope that every member of the planning commission reads the report thoroughly and advises staff to align the draft framework with the MCCC Final Report.
I am deeply concerned about climate action!
The agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting on August 13, 2020, includes under item 3. Sacramento Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update. Attached to that agenda item is a 122 page document that only mentions the Mayor’s Commission on Climate Change (MCCC) recommendations in a few spots. I am unsure as to why this is the case.
The MCCC Final Report should be the basis for the framework of any update to the CAP. That it is not discussed thoroughly at the outset of the document submitted with agenda item 3. and each of its recommendations are not set forth and discussed is of great concern. I trust you will look into this issue and make sure the MCCC Final Report is the backbone of Sacramento’s CAP Update.
I am writing to you as someone deeply concerned about climate change.
The agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting on August 13, 2020, includes under item 3. Sacramento Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update. Attached to that agenda item is a 122 page document that only mentions the Mayor’s Commission on Climate Change (MCCC) recommendations in a few spots. I am unsure as to why this is the case.
The MCCC Final Report should be the basis for the framework of any update to the CAP. That it is not discussed thoroughly at the outset of the document submitted with agenda item 3. and each of its recommendations are not set forth and discussed is of great concern. I trust you will look into this issue and make sure the MCCC Final Report is the backbone of Sacramento’s CAP Update
From my understanding, hot water heating may be an issue with high-rise development in the downtown and midtown areas, and these issues increase as the footprint of buildings shrink (narrow and tall). Residential water heaters are more efficient than their gas-powered counterparts. They are currently more expensive, spurring SMUD's excellent rebate programs. I would like to share the five recommendations that 350 Sacramento and other organizations will be sending to the city council in advance of the Aug 25 meeting where the MCCC report will be discussed, and as the city planners in these meeting have stated, explicit direction will be given by the council on the CAP. These recommendations are attached.
The Sacramento Metro Chamber worked closely with the Mayors Climate Commission through final approval on June 29. We hosted multiple biz round tables. This input is reflected in the final report but is NOT in the Climate Action Plan.
This language is missing:
Provided that the costs to go all-electric are cost effective including the incremental costs of electrical infrastructure upgrades and the technology has shown to be feasible.
On June 29, SMUD CEO Arlen Orchard stated:
The biggest issue is electric hot water heating. There are not any examples within our urban core at this point. [The technology] isn’t there yet. The technology is relatively new. It is true that it does include some additional space challenges for infill development and it is true that right now it is not cost competitive with traditional gas.
We’re gravely concerned that the current language will cripple our ability to build at a time in which we need jobs, infrastructure and housing.
Erika Bjork
summary of emailed comments:
I infer that the plan is to graft our existing fossil fuel lifestyles onto PVs and windmills. I don’t think this is realistic.
I expect that staff analysis contains the same sort of well-meaning wishlists that I first saw when I was on the Sacramento Environmental Commission in the 1990s. And because the price signals are all wrong, I expect similar results, namely mostly a failure to achieve the stated goals.
One very noticeable and feasible measure that can be implemented very soon – banning leafblowers. They are ubiquitous, very noisy, very smelly and dusty, bad for gardens – and completely unnecessary, as the tasks in question are well within human capability. Banning leafblowers and other landscaping machines is an easy first step to practice a new paradigm and also create jobs. If we cannot even stop using leafblowers, we deserve to be toast. So I have constructed a little plan: http://motherearthhome.blogspot.com/
I am hoping the Sacramento Climate Action Plan Update will include the recommendations of the Mayor's Commission on Climate Change. I also hope the Sacramento CAP will direct city officials to work with SMUD and PG&E to inform residents of the "pounds of CO2 emitted per day" delivering their services. If you consult the United Nations Environmental Program website you will see that world CO2 emissions must decrease 7.6% per year beginning in 2020, and decrease 7.6% a year every year for the next 10 years to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C. If we express world CO2 emissions in terms of the "average world citizen", the average world citizen must decrease their 29 pounds of CO2 per person per day in 2019, to 12.3 pounds of CO2 per person per day in 2030 if we are to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C.
I was informed by Sacramento City staff that the recommendations from the Mayors' Commission on Climate Change (MCCC) would form the basis of the "Sacramento Climate Action Plan Update". However, that Update rarely mentions the MCCC recommendations. I served on the MCCC's Technical Advisory Committee for Transportation, and our committee worked hard to develop a consensus for necessary action. It is frustrating to see those recommendations ignored in the Update you have received. I hope you will query City staff on the reasons for this lack of follow-through, and recommend to the City Council baed on this review.
Ralph Propper, ECOS President (Environmental Council of Sacramento)
The Mayors' Commission on Climate Change (MCCC) issued a set of recommendations that MUST be the centerpiece of the upcoming Climate Action Plan (CAP). Hundreds of residents and experts participated in that effort and we expect the Planning Commission and City to incorporate them into the CAP. The fact that the report is not fully discussed in this proposed framework for updating the CAP is of great concern. Why is that???
Even the MCCC recommendations are the bare minimum of what needs to be accomplished if we are to tackle the climate crisis at the scale required by science (and by future generations). We need to do everything possible to cut ghg emissions by 2030, and expect the City to be bold and ambitious, not do a minimal effort with this CAP. The Council recognized the emergency when they passed the Climate Emergency Declaration and the Climate Commission provided a pathway. Do better!!!!
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I'm very concerneed about climare change and want the City's CAP measures to be strong and effective. Specifically, I want the CAP to include the recommendatin of the Mayor's Climate Change Commission. The current document does not clearly do so.
Thankk you.
I am writing to you as someone deeply concerned about climate change.
The agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting on August 13, 2020, includes under item 3. Sacramento Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update. Attached to that agenda item is a 122 page document that only mentions the Mayor’s Commission on Climate Change (MCCC) recommendations in a few spots. I am unsure as to why this is the case.
The MCCC Final Report should be the basis for the framework of any update to the CAP. That it is not discussed thoroughly at the outset of the document submitted with agenda item 3. and each of its recommendations are not set forth and discussed is of great concern. I trust you will look into this issue and make sure the MCCC Final Report is the backbone of Sacramento’s CAP Update.
I am deeply concerned about climate change. As much as I would like my adult children to return to Sacramento where I live and where they grew up, I sadly recommend to them that they not return here due to our increasing heat, persistent serious air pollution resulting in a decreasing quality of life. The recommendations of the MCCC gave me hope that the quality of life would significantly improve here. I attended all of the MCCC meetings and was extremely impressed by the members sustained commitment, dedication, and hard work that resulted in their difficult but appropriate recommendations.
The MCCC Final Report should be used as the basis for the any update to the CAP. That it is not discussed thoroughly at the outset of the document submitted with agenda item 3. and each of its recommendations are not set forth and discussed is of great concern. I trust you will look into this issue and make sure the MCCC Final Report is the backbone of Sacramento’s CAP Update.
In light of our world changing as we know it due to COVID, we should take this opportunity to plan a just recovery and build a greener future for the new normal. To help support this, Sacramento needs to establish a senior-level position to oversee all aspects of climate change implementation and present monthly on progress to the Council. There are great goals established and resources dedicated to ensure we're on track are well worth it.
Regarding the goals set, we should accelerate ordinances to fully electrify low-rise residential buildings by 2021. This will have a large impact on reducing our carbon emissions and the sooner we implement the more future emissions are saved. Fully electric buildings are becoming more commonplace and will be easily achieved starting in 2021.
To help support, the new normal, we should further shift towards human powered transportation and allow for more teleworking and reduced car travel. This includes implementation of the Slow and Active Streets.
I am a Sacramento resident and very concerned about the City’s ability to reach Carbon Zero by 2045.
I request that during your August 13, 2020 meeting the Planning Commission consider the Mayor’s Commission on Climate Change (MCCC) final report and make it integral to your work. Each member of the Planning Commission should read and understand it.
The MCCC’s recommendations set the minimum standards for what the City must do to address climate change. The City should save time, money and effort, and coordinate these plans. This is expedient. It is good government. It is common sense. Do not waste time and re-invent the wheel. Develop recommendations based on the MCCC so we can have one plan and (eyes on the prize) start to reduce emissions immediately.
I am a Sacramento city resident and support the recommendations of the Mayor's Commission on Climate Change, issued in June 2020, with the Final Report to be considered on the City Council’s Agenda on August 25. The MCCC was formed in anticipation of the update of the City's Climate Action Plan, and the MCCC Final Report should be the basis for the framework of any update to the CAP. Why is the MCCC document not included in the official record for this agenda item? Why is the MCCC not referenced more extensively in the draft CAP update document? That it is not discussed thoroughly at the outset of the document is a matter of great concern. I trust you will look into this issue and make sure the MCCC Final Report is the backbone of Sacramento’s CAP Update. I hope that every member of the planning commission reads the report thoroughly and advises staff to align the draft framework with the MCCC Final Report.
I am deeply concerned about climate action!
The agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting on August 13, 2020, includes under item 3. Sacramento Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update. Attached to that agenda item is a 122 page document that only mentions the Mayor’s Commission on Climate Change (MCCC) recommendations in a few spots. I am unsure as to why this is the case.
The MCCC Final Report should be the basis for the framework of any update to the CAP. That it is not discussed thoroughly at the outset of the document submitted with agenda item 3. and each of its recommendations are not set forth and discussed is of great concern. I trust you will look into this issue and make sure the MCCC Final Report is the backbone of Sacramento’s CAP Update.
I am writing to you as someone deeply concerned about climate change.
The agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting on August 13, 2020, includes under item 3. Sacramento Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update. Attached to that agenda item is a 122 page document that only mentions the Mayor’s Commission on Climate Change (MCCC) recommendations in a few spots. I am unsure as to why this is the case.
The MCCC Final Report should be the basis for the framework of any update to the CAP. That it is not discussed thoroughly at the outset of the document submitted with agenda item 3. and each of its recommendations are not set forth and discussed is of great concern. I trust you will look into this issue and make sure the MCCC Final Report is the backbone of Sacramento’s CAP Update
Jill Peterson